A Fair System That Isn’t: The Hidden Tensions in UK Education

There is a structural dissonance at the heart of our education system that has long gone unacknowledged. Once latent, these foundational contradictions are now becoming increasingly visible as inequalities in student outcomes widen and scrutiny intensifies. Since the Attlee government’s landmark attempt at social democracy in 1945, education in the UK has been attempting to improve the life chances of disadvantaged children. Despite neoliberal elements creeping in, our education system still hinges on social democratic values such as state funding, universal access, redistribution, welfare support, and regulation.

In order to measure the success of this approach, schools routinely analyse outcomes data based on micro populations with a strong focus on disadvantaged groups. When Ofsted inspectors visit, we know they are quite rightly going to question us on our knowledge of our disadvantaged students, the strategies/systems we have implemented to support them and their impact. Equity is at the heart of all meaningful work in schools.

This blog is not going to question the morality behind this intention. Far from it. I strongly advocate social mobility and equitable practices. However, I am far from convinced that this intention is being nationally realized. This blog will not focus on local contexts, or the many success stories that are thankfully being written in specific schools and trusts. This blog will focus on the national picture, because I believe this is where the issues really lie. Disadvantaged students are doing well in many contexts because of exceptional staff and leadership, in spite of a national system that claims to be advocating social democracy but isn’t culturally, structurally or socially supporting it. This does not mean that we cannot make meaningful changes in our schools, some of these tensions lie in what we are choosing to implement and how.  

The extent of the problem: A small snapshot of the national picture

Headline statistics from 2003-2004:

Disadvantaged pupils (FSM / Ever‑6)

In 2023–24, 26% of disadvantaged pupils achieved a grade 5 or above in both GCSE English and maths, compared with 53% of non‑disadvantaged pupils.DfE, 2024

SEND (EHCP)

Only 12% of pupils with an Education, Health and Care Plan achieved a grade 5 or above in GCSE English and maths in 2023–24.DfE, 2024 

Gender

Among disadvantaged pupils, 24% of boys achieved grade 5+ in GCSE English and maths in 2023–24, compared with 28% of girls.DfE, (2023–24) 

English as an Additional Language (EAL)

Pupils recorded as having English as an Additional Language had lower attainment than first‑language English pupils at GCSE overall in 2023–24, once disadvantage and prior attainment are taken into account.DfE

Looked After Children (LAC)

Around 13–14% of children looked after achieved a grade 5 or above in GCSE English and maths in 2023–24, compared with around 46% of all pupils.DfE, 2023–24 

Intersectional disadvantage (FSM × ethnicity)

Only 6% of FSM‑eligible Gypsy or Roma pupils achieved a grade 5 or above in GCSE English and maths in 2023–24.DfE, (2023–24) 

If we think back to 1945, and the Attlee government’s attempt to establish its comprehensive social democratic framework for education, yes, there has been an improvement for these social groups in absolute terms (bearing in mind that the labels of these groups have changed over time, making it difficult to track outcomes in a reliable way). However, relative outcomes with regards to non/disadvantaged students show that gaps have historically narrowed slightly at moments of reform but re-emerged or stabilized rather than disappearing.

In summary: absolute outcomes are better now than in 1945, but relative inequalities have proven stubbornly resilient.

This raises a fundamental question. How, despite more than 80 years of efforts to broaden social democracy in education, are things not looking more positive for these disadvantaged groups? The answer is not just the easy one that one might expect; it isn’t just political short-termism. Although this is a significant factor, there have been instances where sitting governments have continued agendas from their predecessors and still haven’t yielded better outcomes for these students. The mismatch between intention and outcome can only really be explained by deeper tensions in the way our society and systems operate. We claim to be building a system based on social democratic principles, but our society’s inherent obsession with stratification, competition, and quantitative metrics, prevent our intention from being realized. Until we drastically change the things our society values and change the systems to reflect these, politicians will continue kicking the political football and wondering why putting plasters on fourth degree social burns isn’t allowing our society to heal.

Tension no.1- Aiming to level a social playing field using internal stratification

It is easy to conclude that social stratification is largely a problem of the past. The Education Act of 1944 opened up schooling to all, and while the tripartite system introduced new forms of inequality, today’s system appears, on the surface, more inclusive. Whilst we still have a hybrid system, every child has access to a school and this does not depend on ability or finance, therefore, we could argue that social stratification in education has decreased because the scope of state provision has increased. The reality is more complex. Yes, we have more non-selective state schools, but look inside those schools, and stratification is being internally replicated; herein lies the problem. The tension is clear: we are attempting to level a wider social playing field through the use of internal hierarchies.

Out of all the intervention strategies, setting and streaming students are often cited as among the least effective methods of improving outcomes for students, as a whole. Until the recent EEF research release (April 2026), decades of research, including large‑scale studies and meta‑analyses, showed that setting/streaming is one of the least effective school‑level interventions for raising attainment and often increases inequality, benefiting high‑attaining pupils slightly while disadvantaging everyone else.

“On average, setting or streaming has not improved attainment outcomes for pupils. Evidence suggests that it may have a small negative impact for some pupils” (EEF, n.d.)

However, the new EEF study (April 2026) reframes this picture. This research shows that lower prior-attaining students are not harmed by setting: their progress is broadly similar in both set and mixed-attainment groups. Indeed, confidence levels were lower in mixed-attainment contexts (EEF, 2026). This research suggests that setting based on prior attainment may support improved outcomes, particularly for higher prior-attaining pupils, if implemented effectively. However, it is important to recognise that this report focuses primarily on progress for different groups, it does not resolve the equity debate. While setting does not appear to disadvantage lower-attaining pupils in terms of progress, neither does it address the deeper social dynamics of expectation, identity, and opportunity that underpin the original critique. Setting and internal stratification should not just be judged on its academic outcomes, but also on its cultural impact. Indeed, the report alludes to this impact when it references staffing allocation to groups and differing teacher expectations.

Earlier work by John Hattie, drawing on meta-analyses of over 1,200 studies, suggests that ability grouping often leads to differential expectations, teaching quality, and curriculum access, which can entrench early differences rather than overcome them, leading to increased inequality (Hattie, 2009, 2012).

So, whilst we can cautiously conclude that setting may support overall attainment, it does not address the equity issue, as it leaves intact the structural and cultural inequalities that shape pupils’ experiences within those groups. If setting is not designed and implemented with this cultural impact in mind (shaping expectations, identities, and opportunities), we risk embedding the very hierarchies the system claims to dismantle.

Tension no.2: Meritocracy (competition) is at odds with equal outcomes

Our society values meritocracy which breeds an individualistic focus and competition for resources. If you have read my previous blog on ‘Barriers facing Girls in the Classroom’, you will already know my thoughts on this. Whilst competition can arguably be healthy, in the sense that it is an effective incentive for personal/wider social progress, there must always be a loser. Competition is defined by the concept of ‘otherness’, which in this case, is a clear binary; in order for someone to win, someone ultimately has to lose. Under a social democratic programme, we are intending for all to ‘win’ regardless of start in life. We attempt to close the poverty gap and end that cycle by focusing on equity in education. And yet, consider what is happening in schools. We are designing learning situations that hinge on competition, in a bid for increased student effort (with attendance, homework, assessments). In lessons, we design activities that have clear elements of competition – Which group did the best presentation? Which student got the highest assessment result? We are socialising students into a culture of competition whereby at least one group of students will always win, and at least one group will fail. Why are we surprised that it is always the same groups of students losing out? We could argue that many schools mitigate this by changing success criteria in competitive situations. We now have the ‘most progress made in a subject’ award, or ‘increased participation in sports’ award, but many students see through these attempts, because they feel like attempts at celebrating those who were not the ‘best’ at something. If you had given me a participation award on Sports Day, I would have been embarrassed. I would have seen this as a superficial attempt at celebrating me when I had not succeeded by ‘winning’. Now, that’s not to say that these awards aren’t meaningful for some students and families, and it is vitally important that we celebrate students. But we do need to look at what competition does to our understanding of success, and what meaningful celebration of success looks like both inside and outside of our classrooms.

Competition isn’t only an internal issue, however. If we are fair to schools, we need to look at the wider political picture. Schools didn’t create cultures built on competition devoid of wider experience and pressure. The tripartite system and the latter academization programme are both neoliberal efforts that reflect this deep commitment to marketisation, and marketisation is built on the premise that elements of free-market economics lead to economic efficiency, because parties (schools) are competing for students, outcomes and funding, and the result will be an increase in quality of provision (indirectly, outcomes). But the issue here, is that some schools, and the students that attend those schools, will lose. The perils of the postcode lottery started under the comprehensive system but have magnified under the academization programme. West and Wolfe concluded that academization has fragmented a previously coherent national system, created variation by trust, region, and contract, not pupil need and reduced local democratic oversight, increasing uneven practice (West and Wolfe, 2019). Successful schools and MATs (deemed as thus by outcomes) will thrive, but the MATs and the schools that do not achieve this narrow definition of success, will not. And this is OK in theory, because it means that the overall quality of education will increase, as those schools/MATs will either have to improve or face closure. The approach may be effective in principle, but the collateral impact is unacceptably high. Low Ofsted ratings drive teachers away, discourage high‑prior‑attaining pupils and families from enrolling, and, in cases of closure, directly harm the students already in the school. Inevitably, the groups of students that lose in this situation will be those that attend these schools, in a less affluent postcode. And we wonder why we can’t close that disadvantage gap.

Tension no.3: Expecting Universal Outcomes with Relative Capacity

The problem lies in the assumption that universal provision can produce equal outcomes despite stark differences in school capacity. In reality, schools operate with vastly unequal capacity. Staffing (competency and turnover), leadership ability, safeguarding, SEND and access to external services are just a few examples of how schools are vastly different. Whilst our national funding formulae is progressive and does adjust to some contextual needs (e.g. area, levels of deprivation) they cannot compensate for the deeply entrenched social inequalities. This exacerbates the postcode lottery, whereby the students losing out belong to the disadvantaged groups.

Tension no.4: Rights Expansion vs Resource Retrenchment

This tension directly links to the previous one. Under social democracy, rights increase. Arguably the most significant increase in rights were under the Butler Act (1944) and the Equality Act (2010), but there has been a whole swathe of legislation/guidance on Safeguarding, SEND and Inclusion which has given students/families clear entitlements to a certain level of service and care. As a result, schools are now expected to provide more, but resources do not support their delivery. One clear example of this is that we have significantly expanded SEND entitlements into a strong, individual rights‑based system. The SEND framework established under the Children and Families Act (2014) creates a legal foundation for individual entitlement, with the SEND Code of Practice providing the principles and guidance for its implementation (DfE and Department of Health, 2015). Whilst these changes support SEND students and their families, the issue is that the system that is structurally under‑resourced, capacity‑constrained, and performance‑driven.

Another area of resource retrenchment can be seen in safeguarding provision. The elevation of safeguarding to a central national priority reflects a shift from education as primarily instructional to education as accountable for welfare, underpinned by statutory duties (Education Act, 2002; Children Act, 2004) and enforced through guidance such as Keeping Children Safe in Education (DfE, 2015). Schools are now central to wellbeing, being a key part of the multi-agency approach to care, but external service provision like CAMHS has suffered resource retrenchment, where thresholds have increased, caseloads have drastically increased without matched staffing, and early intervention services are limited.  There is broad professional agreement that CAMHS capacity is insufficient relative to demand. The Royal College of Psychiatrists states that CAMHS is “too under‑resourced to meet increasing need”, leading to long waiting times (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2025) and the British Medical Association similarly notes that demand is outpacing resources, leaving children “falling through the gaps” (British Medical Association, 2025). Before taking up her role as Secretary of State for Education, I had the opportunity to meet with The Rt Hon Bridget Phillipson MP, and this was the primary focus of our discussion. The evidence shows that CAMHS demand is heavily concentrated among disadvantaged groups, with children from deprived backgrounds more likely to experience mental health difficulties, to be referred to services, and to require support, although they often face greater barriers to accessing it (Lazzarino et al., 2023; Sayal et al., 2026), and resource retrenchment will inevitably impact these groups of students.

Resource retrenchment is having a significant impact on our looked-after children. Whilst rights and policy have been extended, resources provided cannot meet the increased entitlements (Tawell et al., 2025). The role of the Virtual School Head was extended from supporting looked‑after and previously looked‑after children to include all children with a social worker in 2021, expanding the cohort to around 1.6 million children, significantly increasing both caseload size (Department for Education, 2025; Tawell et al., 2025). At the same time, children’s services have experienced substantial cuts to early intervention, falling by over 40% since 2010, which has forced the focus to shift to crisis and urgent need and away from preventative care (NSPCC, 2025; Children’s Society, 2023). The impact on the children that arguably need us the most is profound.

Tension no.5: Inclusion vs Curriculum Hierarchy

British education has social‑democratic aspirations of broad inclusion but maintains a highly hierarchical curriculum. For years, we have had an EBacc focus and academic pathways have been prioritized over vocational. It does not take long to identify the groups of students this tends to advantage, and those it leaves out. Whilst there have been notable changes to the curriculum in a bid to close this gap, we are attempting to reverse centuries of academic elitism, and even then, are these changes really about improving social mobility of the disadvantaged, or are they a bid to boost the economy by funnelling students into careers where there is a deficit? The curriculum issue is not just tied to financial affluence, it is also linked to cultural identity. Our curriculum is largely ethnocentric, which, one could argue, is logical, given that education should reflect the interests and needs of its society. However; our schools are becoming more diverse, but our curriculum does not reflect this.  Curriculum amendments are being made in many schools in a bid to increase diversity and reflect their student body, but central exam board syllabi are largely dictating (or at least heavily influencing) our content, and their changes usually involve curriculum consultation with teachers, which takes months-years to implement. Central exam boards can struggle to keep pace with the changing national or local demographic. The result is that many ethnic minority students are under-represented and under-considered in the curriculum, and learning can be a culturally alienating experience. When we think about our curriculum, it is clear to see how our ethnic majority students have cultural capital. Indeed, our entire education system’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1977) is based on cultural majority history and values; the way we dress, the way we communicate, the expectations we hold. Whilst Bourdieu originally referred to our education system reflecting a dominant social class habitus, we can make this link to dominant ethnicity/culture also. Our curriculum should reflect multiple cultures, not cultural hegemony. Is it any wonder that many disadvantaged students struggle to succeed? What they learn does not feel relevant, and a sense of belonging is often absent.

Tension no.6: Metric‑Driven Success vs Moral Obligation

If schools are judged on their outcomes in the form of performance accountability measures like Progress 8, Attainment 8, and other numerous quantitative data sources, we can understand the pressure for schools to perform each year. Staff experience this pressure first-hand, worrying about results and what their data says about the quality of their teaching and leadership. Indeed, in the months prior to exams, many schools ask middle leaders to focus on students that are considered marginal gains; focus on the grade 3 students who we could easily work with to achieve grade 4s. This adage of ‘marginal gains’ is an indirect product of accountability measures, and prior to grade 3-4, staff were focusing on the borderline D-C students, or the C-B. What is happening here is often at odds with social democratic values and our moral obligation to improve the outcomes for disadvantaged students. It is less of a consideration of context and equity, but more a desperate attempt to boost performance data of a school overall. If the data improves for a particular disadvantaged student, it feels like more of a win, but it wasn’t necessarily the intention of the teacher/leader when they were deciding on intervention strategies. However, with the formal consultation on a revised Progress 8‑type measure currently underway (at the time of writing, April 2026), there is potential for changes to subject weighting and structure, improved recognition of progress for lower‑attaining pupils, and a move away from the current EBacc‑based subject model towards a broader curriculum framework (Department for Education, 2026).

Hopefully, this article has provided some reflection points to consider that may be relevant to your context. Whilst many of these issues lie at government level, I want to leave you with some potential suggestions for in-school change that might prompt reconsideration of current practice and wider system priorities.

What Schools Can Do: Navigating Systemic Tensions in Practice

Tension 1: Levelling the Playing Field While Reproducing Internal Stratification

At system level

·       Design grouping deliberately, not by default: regularly review set structures, placement criteria, and movement between groups to avoid fixed hierarchies.

·       Ensure equitable teaching quality across all groups: Distribute experienced teachers and resources fairly across sets, not just in top groups.

·       Monitor the cultural impact of grouping: Track patterns in confidence, identity, and pupil experience, not just attainment data.

At classroom level (teacher practice and pedagogy)

• Maintain challenge for all pupils. Ensure consistent pace, depth, and curriculum ambition across all groups.

• See grouping as part of a wider teaching strategy. Focus on pedagogy, expectations, and responsiveness, recognising that grouping alone does not drive equity.

Cultural shift

• Explicitly challenge deficit language (e.g. “bottom set students”) in staff discourse.

• Replace ‘low ability’ with ‘low prior attaining’- As Mary Myatt stated, we cannot accurately comment on ‘ability’, only ‘prior attainment’ (Myatt, 2017).

• Reframe intervention as entitlement, not remediation. Indeed ‘intervention’ can carry a stigma, so consider how this is framed.

Tension 2: Meritocracy, Competition, and Unequal Outcomes

Teaching and learning

• Reduce reliance on competitive pedagogies (rankings, “best work” comparisons).

• Emphasise criterion‑referenced success rather than peer comparison.

• Increase collaborative learning structures where success is shared, not zero‑sum.

Rewards and recognition

• Redesign rewards to celebrate:

  • Mastery

  • Persistence

  • Improvement against self, not others

• Avoid tokenistic awards; instead:

  • Make success criteria explicit and authentic

  • Link recognition to real learning achievements

Whole‑school culture

• Model an understanding of success as collective team improvement, not individual dominance.

• Explicitly discuss with students how competition shapes opportunity, rather than pretending the system is neutral.

Tension 3: Universal Expectations vs Unequal Capacity

Strategic leadership

• Prioritise capacity‑building over initiative‑building:

  • Fewer changes, better implemented (Leaning, E. and Efraim, R. 2023)

  • Protecting staff workload and expertise

• Use disadvantage funding to:

  • Stabilise staffing

  • Reduce turnover

  • Invest in SEND expertise and mental health capacity

Operational decisions

• Be honest about limits and capacity.

• Focus resources on foundational provision (quality first teaching, behaviour, attendance) before layering extras.

  
  

Collaboration

• Share provision across trusts or local networks:

  • Specialist SEND staff

  • Safeguarding expertise

  • Curriculum resources

Tension 4: Rights Expansion vs Resource Retrenchment

Safeguarding and SEND

• Establish clear thresholds for what school provision can realistically deliver and document when demand exceeds capacity.

• Protect staff by:

  • Allocating safeguarding and SEND caseloads carefully

  • Ensuring trained specialists are not overloaded

    
    

Multi‑agency working

• Formalise escalation routes when external services fail to respond.

• Advocate collectively (as clusters or MATs) rather than individually when services collapse.

  
  

Internal realism

• Build systems that are sustainable, not heroic.

• Resist normalising burnout as a moral obligation.

Tension 5: Inclusion vs Curriculum Hierarchy

Curriculum design

• Conduct a curriculum representation audit:

  • Whose knowledge?

  • Whose histories?

  • Whose values?

• Diversify examples, authors, case studies, not as add‑ons, but as core content.

  
  

Pedagogy

• Explicitly teach cultural capital (academic language, norms, expectations) rather than assuming it.

• Build bridges between students’ lived experience and curriculum knowledge.

  
  

Within exam constraints

• Use autonomy in:

  • Text choices where possible

  • Case study selection

  • Historical and contemporary examples

• Create local curriculum space alongside exam requirements (assemblies, enrichment, KS3 flexibility).

Tension 6: Metric‑Driven Success vs Moral Obligation

Data use

• Use accountability data as diagnostic, not directional.

• Track:

  • Who is consistently not prioritised

  • Whose progress is sacrificed for marginal gains

    
    

Intervention strategy

• Balance focus on threshold students with ethical consideration of need.

• Ring‑fence time and resources for students furthest from expected outcomes.

  
  

Leadership culture

• Protect staff from reducing students to data points.

• Keep equity explicitly on the agenda in results analysis and improvement planning.

References

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Children Act (2004) Children Act 2004. London: The Stationery Office.

Children and Families Act (2014) Children and Families Act 2014, Part 3. London: The Stationery Office.

Children’s Society (2023) The well-worn path: how investment in early support services for children has changed. London: The Children’s Society.

Department for Education (2015) Keeping children safe in education: Statutory guidance for schools and colleges. London: DfE.

Department for Education (2024) Attainment at age 16: school year 2023 to 2024. London: Department for Education. Available at:https://social-mobility.data.gov.uk/intermediate_outcomes/compulsory_school_age_%285_to_16_years%29/attainment_at_age_16/latest(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Department for Education (2024) Key stage 4 performance, academic year 2023 to 2024 (revised). London: Department for Education. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/key-stage-4-performance-2024(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Department for Education (2025) Outcomes for children in need, including children looked after by local authorities in England: 2023 to 2024. London: Department for Education. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/outcomes-for-children-in-need-including-children-looked-after-by-local-authorities-in-england-2023-to-2024(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Department for Education (2025) Promoting the education of children with a social worker and children in kinship care arrangements: virtual school head role extension. London: DfE. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/virtual-school-head-role-extension-to-children-with-a-social-worker(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Department for Education and Department of Health (2015) SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years.

Education Act (1944) Education Act 1944. London: HMSO.

Education Act (2002) Education Act 2002. London: The Stationery Office.

Education Endowment Foundation (n.d.) Setting and streaming. Teaching and Learning Toolkit. London: EEF. Available at:https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-and-streaming(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and UCL Institute of Education (2026) Student Grouping Study: Impact of setting and mixed-attainment grouping in Key Stage 3 maths. London: EEF.

Equality Act (2010) Equality Act 2010. London: The Stationery Office.

Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2012) Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.

Lazzarino, A.I., Salkind, J.A., Amati, F., Robinson, T., Gnani, S., Nicholls, D. and Hargreaves, D. (2023) ‘Inequalities in mental health service utilisation by children and young people: a population survey using linked electronic health records from Northwest London, UK’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 78(3), pp. 191–197.

Leaning, E. and Efraim, R. (2023) Making change stick: A practical guide to implementing school improvement. Woodbridge: John Catt.

Myatt, M. (2017) ‘Why we should stop ability setting in schools’, Schools Week.

NSPCC (2025) Children’s services spending reports: A long road to recovery. London: NSPCC Learning. Available at:https://learning.nspcc.org.uk(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Myatt, M. (2017) ‘Why we should stop ability setting in schools’, Schools Week, 9 December. Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/why-we-should-stop-ability-setting-in-schools/ (Accessed: 7 May 2026).

Ofqual (2024) Student level equalities analysis for GCSE, A level and VTQs: 2024. Coventry: Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation. Available at:https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-equalities-analysis(Accessed: 26 April 2026).

Sayal, K., Holt, G., Partlett, C., Wyatt, L., Bhardwaj, A. and Gledhill, J. (2026) ‘Investigating inequalities in children and young people’s mental healthcare and outcomes: prospective longitudinal analysis from the STADIA trial’, The British Journal of Psychiatry.

Tawell, A., Brown, A., Rees, A., Moreno Silva, T., Froustis, E., Luke, N., Selwyn, J., Duckworth, K. and Feinstein, L. (2025) Evaluation of the extension of virtual school heads’ duties to children with a social worker. London: Department for Education.

West, A. and Wolfe, D. (2019) ‘Academies, autonomy, equality and democratic accountability’, London Review of Education.